Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chhattisgarh High Court

Taking a strict stance against systemic delays in criminal trials, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure the mandatory presence of all prosecution and police witnesses in an ongoing NDPS matter, warning that a failure to do so would result in the immediate stoppage of their salaries.

The Court observed that despite charges being framed, the trial had come to a standstill because summonses to material witnesses were repeatedly returned unserved.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha directed, "The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure the presence of the prosecution witnesses, including seizure witness and prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, for recording their evidence on the next date fixed i.e. 03.07.2026. Failing which, their salaries shall be stopped, as the conclusion of the trial is being delayed due to the laxity of the police personnel." 

Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Smriti Shrivastava appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The prosecution case arose out of secret information received by the police alleging that two individuals were carrying narcotic syrup near a hospital and were searching for customers. Acting upon the said information and after complying with the statutory procedure, the police personnel conducted a raid at the spot and lawfully apprehended two co-accused persons. A search of a bag kept inside their E-rickshaw led to the recovery and seizure of forty bottles of narcotic syrup containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride, aggregating to a total quantity of four litres.

In their statements recorded during investigation, the apprehended co-accused persons disclosed that they had purchased the contraband from the present applicant. Subsequently, the applicant was interrogated and his statement was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had procured the narcotic syrup from another supplier and had sold the same to the co-accused persons.

Finding prima facie evidence of an organized drug network, the police registered a criminal case against the applicant and other co-accused persons for offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Following the completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent trial court.

Contentions of the Applicant

The Applicant submitted that this was the second bail application, as the earlier application had been rejected on merits. It was contended that a fresh ground for bail arose due to the prolonged incarceration of the applicant and the absolute lack of progress in the trial. The learned counsel argued that despite the framing of charges, not a single prosecution witness had been examined by the trial court because the summonses repeatedly returned unserved. It was further urged that since fifteen prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.

It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to collect independent incriminating material, such as CCTV footage or employment records, to establish any sale transaction, and that the procedure adopted for the seizure and weighment of the contraband remained highly doubtful.

Contentions of the State

The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the police seized a commercial quantity of contraband from the co-accused persons, which was far above the threshold prescribed under the law. It was contended that the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, coupled with the voluntary disclosure statement of the applicant himself, explicitly established an organized chain of illicit trafficking in narcotic substances. The State concluded that the grounds raised in the repeat bail application were entirely insufficient to interfere with the earlier order passed on merits.

Observations and Findings

The Court perused the case diary and the order-sheets of the trial court and observed that although no prosecution witnesses had been examined after the framing of charges, the ground of delay by itself did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.

The Court found that the applicant was not implicated merely on the statements of others, but his own memorandum statement corroboratively indicated his role in procuring and distributing the contraband, pointing to his active involvement in an organized chain of illicit drug trafficking.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the quantity of the seized narcotic syrup fell squarely within the definition of a commercial quantity under the statute. The Court held that the severity of the offence and the prima facie material available on record disentitled the applicant from the grant of regular bail, and consequently, the second bail application was rejected.

"Although it appears that no prosecution witness has been examined after framing of charges and the next date fixed before the trial Court for recording evidence i.e. 03.07.2026, however, considering the fact that the applicant has been implicated not only on the basis of the memorandum statements of co-accused persons namely, Yuvraj Singh Chouhan and Wajid Khan, who specifically disclosed that they had purchased the seized narcotic syrup from the present applicant, but also in view of the memorandum statement of the present applicant himself, wherein he disclosed that he had procured the contraband from Bhavnath Tiwari and thereafter sold the same to the co-accused persons, prima facie, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the applicant in an organized chain of illicit trafficking of narcotic substances", the Court observed.

To ensure progress, the Court issued directions to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to ensure the personal appearance of the prosecution witnesses, including the police personnel and seizure witnesses, on the next scheduled date of hearing.

The Court warned that a failure to ensure their presence would result in the stoppage of their salaries, noting that the trial was being unnecessarily delayed due to the laxity of the police department.

Cause Title: Nehal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [Neutral Citation:2026:CGHC:26299]

Appearances:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza

Respondent: Advocate Smriti Shrivastava

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: